You Got Served: K.C. Joyner is a tool

Ted BartlettAug 7, 2012 12:00 PM

Happy Tuesday, friends. I’m a little hard up for stuff to write about today, so I decided to eat some low-hanging fruit. Being a person who subscribes to ESPN’s Insider service, I get an interesting mix of useful and useless material. Among the useless stuff that I get is articles from K.C. Joyner, The Football Scientist, or as I like to call him, The “Football Scientist.”

Joyner was an early screamer about football stats, and how there weren’t enough of them, and how they weren’t good enough. He had a point, but his personal capacity to remedy the situation was, shall we say, limited. He created a bunch of metrics, many based upon his own subjective observations. For an example, I give you Good Blocking Yards Per Attempt. What exactly does “Good” mean? It sounds like he’s measuring something that’s not exactly measurable.

I guess it’s good to be first on the scene, because then ESPN pays you to write stupid articles and pimp your book through oblique references to it, as if everybody bought and memorized the thing. Actually, it’s good to be second too, because they do the same thing with Football Outsiders, who also acts as if their own proprietary stats are the bomb-diggity, be-all, end-all fountain of all football knowledge. I’d like to see them have a nerd fight – My VYPA is better than your DVOA! I’ll unleash my 23rd-level warlock on your paladin! Pokemon to the rescue! (I know, I’m kind of an a-hole jock – sue me.)

In either case, here’s the mindset – my numbers are the best thing ever, and you can use them to most reliably predict what’s going to happen, or explain what did happen. Despite being more than adequate at math, and being capable of understanding the numbers, I instinctively distrust anybody who tells me they have an equation that tells me who is going to win football games. There are too many variables at play for one math problem to be very predictive.

You want an example? Exactly what metric would have predicted that the 2011 New York Giants would beat the 15-1 Packers in the NFC Divisional Playoffs? At the time they played, the Giants had snuck into the playoffs as a 9-7 team that was last in the NFL in rushing yards per game, and 29th in passing yards allowed per game. They had scored 394 points and given up 400, which was 11th out of 12 playoff teams (guess which one was last).

No metric was going to predict that result, yet it wasn’t a fluke. Remember, the Giants lost to Green Bay in overtime during the 2011 regular season and gave them their first scare. Arguably, a guy like me, who gets my information from my eyes would have been more likely to see the Giants’ excellent defensive line vs. the Packers’ suspect offensive line as a potentially game-deciding matchup advantage.

There’s no equation or approach that gives us the final answer. Stats can provide some intelligence that tells part of the story, just like a knowledgeable person watching tape can. When it comes down to it though, a lot of football games are decided by luck and timing and pure randomness.

Joyner is my target today because he’s one of these particularly annoying know-it-all types who is speaking subjectively, and trying to con you into thinking he’s being objective, and that his brain droppings are therefore meaningful. His stats are the best stats, and beyond that, his reasoning is the best reasoning. He wrote an article for Insider that says the Chargers are going to win the AFC West in 2012. I’m going to list and paraphrase his five reasons why, so as not to unlawfully use the content I paid for, and then I’ll tear him apart. Ready? BEGIN

1. Philip Rivers is the best QB in the division.

Ooooh, provocative! Joyner’s favorite stat ever is Vertical Yards Per Attempt (VYPA! (Armed?)) He says that Rivers was ninth in the NFL in VYPA last season, and that Peyton Manning was 26th in that metric in 2010, when he last played. Joyner actually seems to consider that to be Manning’s normal production, and says that even if his four neck surgeries get him back there, he’s unlikely to post top-flight vertical numbers. Because that’s everything. Or something.

Proprietary stat in a vacuum plus ignored context plus vacuous analysis equals wrong conclusion. Rivers has a high VYPA because he has had receivers that are at their best running vertical routes, and because his scheme is one that puts them in position to do so frequently. The Chargers throw lots of screens and swing passes, and run lots of 9 routes. They don’t do much in the middle of the field - beyond throw to their TE, usually further downfield than 11 yards - which isn’t “vertical” in my opinion, but qualifies for Joyner’s stupid stat.

The 2010 version of Manning played with subpar receivers, none of whom is a vertical type of player. Reggie Wayne led the team in Yards Per Reception at 12.2. It was a chain-moving, quick-throwing offense, partly because guys like Austin Collie, Blair White, and a banged-up Dallas Clark were doing the receiving, and partly because the offensive line was a sieve. Manning still threw for 4,700 yards, despite the effects of his neck injury.

Oh yeah, and last year stays last year. Next.

2. The Chargers have the best set of receivers in the division.

Antonio Gates is the bestest ever, even though he hasn’t done too well the last couple years when he was banged up a lot. (Last year doesn’t matter, because Eric Weddle said so). Malcom Floyd and Robert Meachem had high VYPA’s last year (which now matters) while playing as tertiary options with good QBs, and seeing lots of single coverage in highly vertical offenses. Vincent Brown looked good in camp, according to Pork Chop, and so did Eddie Royal (whose bad 2011 season doesn’t matter). This is the deepest set of receivers, and deepest means best! Whee!

Joyner is so sure of this pronouncement that he doesn’t even seem to consider the receivers on any other team in the Division. There’s no mention of Eric Decker or Demaryius Thomas, whose “per attempt” stats may be slightly affected by their former QB’s struggles to hit the broadside of an outhouse. (I think outhouses are cool – I work in Taylor County, Florida, in the middle of nowhere, and some locals still use outhouses, rather than upgrade to indoor plumbing.)

The thing with QBs and receivers is that they kind of make each other. A QB is only as good as the guys catching the ball, and a receiver is only as good as the guy throwing it. To my eyes, if you had the same QB throwing to all of them, Decker and Thomas are the most talented starting pair in the AFC West, followed by Kansas City (Bowe/Baldwin), and then San Diego, with Oakland bringing up the rear.

3. The Chargers have the best running back in the division.

This is kind of a doozy. Every team has at least one back who can make the claim of being the best, based on either the eye test or the stats. Hell, if you really loved some Caucasianness in your running backs, you could make the claim twice for the Chiefs (Charles/Hillis).

Joyner’s rationale is the following:

a. Ryan Mathews did well when the Chargers blocked well.

b. Darren McFadden did too for the Raiders, but he gets hurt too much.

c. Jamaal Charles is good but he had an ACL tear, and Peyton Hillis was worst in the NFL in GBYPA in 2011.

d. Willis McGahee was just as good in GBYPA as Mathews but he’ll be 31 soon, and his carries have been limited the last four years, and those two facts count against his present day quality or something.

And on top of that, Joyner is a “scientist” who is “scientifically” driving toward a predetermined contrarian conclusion. Just like a crank “scientist” cooking the books to make man-made climate change look like a hoax to gullible idiots like ________________. Feel free to enter your name in the blank, if you want, as half the country is presently a disaster area due to not-random drought conditions. Moving right along…

4. The Chargers had the best Draft in the division.

I love this one, because it’s uber-scientific. (I loathe the prefix uber, by the way.)

The Chargers had the best grade in Mel Kiper’s annual Draft grades, with a B+. The Broncos and Chiefs each had a C+, the Raiders had a C-. Plus, Philip Rivers thinks Melvin Ingram and Kendall Reyes are good, and no veteran player ever, EVER likes the rookies on his team. Case closed. (Literally).

One of my rules for writing is, and always has been, never to use a word that I wouldn’t say in everyday speech. It sounds contrived and unnatural, and crappy sportswriting is filled with it. I use a lot of different words in my speech, and some of them are big and obscure, depending on the audience, but one word I never use is “woes.” It’s right up there with a team “eyeing” a player. It just drives me crazy, and I felt like sharing that. We’re not all meant to write in the same stupid language as Peter King.

San Diego’s defense kind of sucked last year. As we know, last year stays last year, so rational thinkers will give that fact some acknowledgment, but won’t completely hold it against them. Joyner doesn’t get that though, and he goes through the pros and cons, like he’s setting up a half-assed equation, again. The Chargers were 25th in YPA allowed, 22nd in points allowed, and 27th in passing TDs allowed. Those are bad stats. On the good side, Antoine Cason was good, and while Quentin Jammer sucked, he was getting divorced, so he gets a pass. And then, he double-counts Ingram and Reyes, who might get a bunch of sacks, if you ignore the typical reality that rookies who aren’t absolute athletic freaks tend not to do well against NFL pass protection.

Not much science here, folks. It reads like the kind of rationalization you’d see on a low-rent Chargers blog. Let me do better. Ready?

The Chargers had an interesting offseason, in terms of changes in their defensive personnel. They lost a long-time key player on their defensive line in Luis Castillo, who may be completely used up at this point. If Corey Liuget improves in his second year, which is reasonable, the loss may not matter much. The Bolts drafted Kendall Reyes, which was a bit of a weird scheme fit, but he may be able to help some in pass rush situations right away. I don’t think he’s ready to two-gap in base defense, though.

If Melvin Ingram can get some pressure from the OLB spot, the Chargers could see some improvement there, but he’s kind of a technique guy more than a physical tools guy, and his tricks are going to work less well in the early going at this level. Jarret Johnson is a good edge-setter in the run game on the strongside, but doesn’t offer much pass rush. Shaun Phillips is still there, and using him on fewer base snaps seems like a good idea. Inside, Donald Butler has some potential, but he has a little way to go to reach competence. Takeo Spikes is a big name, but he really struggles in coverage. Larry English has been a waste of oxygen.

The CB situation is shaky after Antoine Cason and maybe Quentin Jammer. Jammer seemed to decline last season, but he blames some personal problems, and he may be able to bounce back. The book on him has always been that he can cover, but he can’t catch a cold. There’s not much depth, unless second-year player Marcus Gilchrist has improved, which is reasonable.

Eric Weddle is very good at FS, but the Chargers seem to be putting a lot of eggs in the Atari Bigby basket on the other side. He’s reasonably competent when he stays healthy, but that hasn’t happened much the last few years. Behind him is basically dreck. Lack of quality Safety depth is a major risk area on this team.

In all, the Chargers could be better on defense if they play better on defense during football games. It’s reasonable to think that they have a chance to improve, and it’s equally reasonable to think that they don’t.

I think the Chargers will be in the mix for the AFC West championship, along with the Broncos and Chiefs. I think those three teams are similarly talented, and that QB play, luck, and team health will probably make the difference. In fact, I could make a case for the Raiders winning the division too, if Carson Palmer has a 2005-like season, and some young guys step up for them, especially in the secondary. The AFC West is now home to four programs which appear to be well-managed to some extent, and that makes things interesting for the future.

There’s no math equation that can tell any of us who’s going to win the division, the Super Bowl, or even Game 1 of the season. It will take football to be played to determine all of that. This takedown of K.C. Joyner and by extension, wankers like him, has been brought to you by the fine company who paid for the advertisement that Google put in your ad window. Please consider buying their product or service. If not, thanks for at least putting your eyes on the screen.

Which team do you expect to win the AFC West in 2012?

1. I’m not in the arguing business, I’m in the saying what I think business.
2. I get my information from my eyes.

Gase was reportedly Browns' first coaching target; Bucs checked on Chucky and the Chin before hiring Lovie; Triplette to officiate Chargers/Bengals

Poll: Oakland and Denver both improved their franchises versus 12 months ago, with the Broncs improvement mostly on the roster side and the Raider improvement on the management/coaching side. Considering how the Raiders have been shooting themselves in the foot for at least a decade from the front office down to the sideline, I think they may finally be on the upswing. KC may have improved here and there, but I am not buying the Cassel can win koolaid. SD still has Norv... yes!!! As the AFC West was a virtual dead heat last year, expecting the Broncos and Raiders will duke it out for the division crown.

Posted by MississippiMudWalk on 2012-08-08 07:30:07

Wow folks... Just because you disagree with a stat doesn't mean it is wrong, or the probability implied by that stat is worthless. A 60percent probability of being correct still misses 40percent of the time.

Some stats, like play byplay data and it's derivations are more objective data. Subjective stats like joyners should be taken with a pile of salt for sure. But that doesn't mean the stats arent informative... They just aren't definitive.

Blowhards are blowhards, and Opinions are opinions, but claiming all data you disagree with is questionable is a great way to stick your head in the sand. If you have a better set of objective data to dispute claims, go for it... Ted does that here. But don't just blindly dismiss data you disagree with.

Posted by cjfarls on 2012-08-07 21:59:26

This may be true. I can't say because I don't value the information presented on that site enough to visit it with any regularity. I do know that FO has been cited as a source by more than one contributor on other (far lesser) boards than this one as, to quote Ted, "the bomb-diggity, be-all, end-all fountain of all football knowledge". Specifically in a very strident dismissal of the talents of Ed Reed and in general on other matters. Maybe my complaint is directed more at the fanboys who congregate there, which is what was addressed in the first sentence of my initial post.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-08-07 21:46:41

Also, I've never seen them say Ed reed is a bad player... In fact, I routinely see them say he's a first ballot HOFer. As they say, even if his stats are worse than be other worse players may simply be he has different responsibilities than those he's being compared to. But his stats are still bad. They may just be better than a different player given similar responsibilities.

Posted by cjfarls on 2012-08-07 21:37:58

Actually, I don't. What I said was this:

"I have always used considered blind acceptance and promotion of the numbers provided by Football Outsiders as kind of a litmus test for an individual's gullibility."

And I stand by it.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-08-07 21:34:00

You protest too much.

FO and others provide a TON of useful data. They should be congratulated for providing a set of objective data that does a much better job of handling context than traditional stats. Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean the data is wrong.

That said, even they admit their stats only cover roughly 40percent of the variability in an nfl game. That means 60plus is still randomness/variable/unpredictable. So like any analyst, it's relatively easy to overstate the results of their stat analysis. When they start to apply meaning, take it with a grain of salt like any subjective analysis, but also realize the stats they have are better than most.

Posted by cjfarls on 2012-08-07 21:30:32

Wow, a lot of charger fans voted.

Posted by Kell_C on 2012-08-07 19:44:59

Denver and KC will split. Just like every other year. Denver and KC always split.

Posted by A R on 2012-08-07 15:06:11

Unrelated to the story, just wanted to pass along that the Denver Post is reporting charges will not be filed against Elvis Dumervil. Wooooohoooooo!!!

Posted by John Tomasik on 2012-08-07 15:03:09

Another solid read. I like the fact that you were able to loop in the bit about global "temperature different than recent years would expect to behave" change. I find it horrendous that people have been controlled to think that certain things that stats can clearly show are outside the bounds of normal ranges to not exist and simply be an agenda of someone elses bias. I think the reason for this is people want a simple answer for everything in general, like the stat equation for football or how a QB performed. We put in everything and can tell you the meaning of life or who the best QB is or will be next week. Life doesn't work that way unfortunately and if people were being scientific about it they would be providing standard deviations from their predicted outcomes based on injuries and luck and time zones of games and ....

Posted by Bronco_JJ on 2012-08-07 14:46:37

I have always used considered blind acceptance and promotion of the numbers provided by Football Outsiders as kind of a litmus test for an individual's gullibility. To me, the name Football Outsiders is just kind of a public admission that nobody in the business would ever pay any of those guys to work for them. Ed Reed sucks at football, doesn't everybody know that? Forget what his teammates and opponents all say about him. The Defensive Player of the Year award and the multiple All Pro teams. He sucks because we have invented some specious metrics to support our confirmation bias and your task, striplings, is to disseminate this quasi-information across the internet.

Posted by Yahmule on 2012-08-07 14:36:15

Now we have 2 votes for the Dolts and even one for the Faikers. WTF? Is this the result of the medical marijuana laws that've been passed???? ...step away from the bong, boy....lol...

Posted by John Tomasik on 2012-08-07 14:27:11

it wasn't me, but they're the only team in the AFC west that scares me. Winning the AFC west the year before last was an anomaly, but last year's meltdown was just as much of an anomaly, if not more so due to all the injuries. If everyone comes back healthy I think they've built a solid young core team and could compete in the AFC soon. San Diego is looking more and more disfunctional each year, and their talent window looks like it's closing pretty quickly at this point. A few years ago they had a great team (on paper if not on the field and certainly not in the playoffs!) but talent doesn't last in the NFL. The Raiders could be headed in a more competitive direction in the absence of the Crypt Keeper, but they'll likely be hamstrung by the lingering effects of all those poor personell decisions for at least a few years more. KC's the only one to worry about in my estimation.

Posted by Hercules_Rockefeller on 2012-08-07 14:11:21

Alright! Who voted for KC? C'mon, speak up! I predict we beat them twice this year. Matt Cassel can't get it done and Romeo Crennel doesn't exactly have a stellar track record.

Good write up on the Chargers though. This is going to be a fun season. I can't wait! Go Broncos!!!

Posted by Rollston Frangopoulos on 2012-08-07 13:54:46

I suspect a the way to get into the racket is a logical extension of Greener's Law: "Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel." You just set yourself up as an expert by shotgunning pronouncements and predictions. Avoid the weasel words like "may," "might," and "I think" -- Peter King and Porkchop of have unfortunately so overused this approach that it invites instant ridicule.

Back your statements up with whatever facts fit your theory (let's face it, the vast majority has no understanding of confimational bias). You can either go the psuedoscience route and invent statistics and twist numbers, or you can go the intangibles route which is easier for the less mathematically inclined. The big key is to avoid getting into pissing contests -- let people argue with you but don't engage and argue back.

No matter how accurate your predictions are, pat yourself on the back loudly and publically when your pronouncements are correct, and ignore the times that you're wrong. If someone calls you out on a wrong statement, attribute it to a statistical anomoly (science route) or to the player's heart (intangibles). Again, use confirmation bias to your advantage as most people are prone to remember success over failure.

Above all, stay away from sites like IAOFM. Sites with knowledgable writers and smart football people will only serve to introduce reality into your fantasy, and you run the real risk that Ted or TJ or Doug will lance your swollen ego for you.

BTW: Great article Ted!

Posted by DCJ1 on 2012-08-07 13:43:25

I have great respect for a well reasoned argument, even if I disagree....and none for propaganda ala Joyner - whose dribble is meant only to bolster his own dumb ego...thanks for the takedown! Who's next? ;-) I mean if we want to believe his hogwash why play the game? Just have dueling stats in football virtual wargames...fewer concussions too....

Posted by denverkewl on 2012-08-07 13:15:55

I love when Ted uses Wanker. It was a great read too. And kudos Ted, you use the word wanker like an Aussie would!

Posted by boydy2669 on 2012-08-07 13:00:57

I agree. Use 'woes' less, and 'wanker' more. Just not 'eyeing' and 'wanker' together.

Posted by OutOfYourElement on 2012-08-07 12:31:50

A-hole jock. I like that. heehee Reminds me of a recent appearance Ty Warren made with C.J. & Kreckman, I think, where they revived a remark Warren once made: "You're either a butt hole or you're not." Warren went on to say he'd rather be a butt hole.

At any rate, good stuff, Ted. You are a very entertaining writer.

Posted by AZDynamics on 2012-08-07 12:25:46

What amazes me about this game is all of the money that is made by some of the dumbest people. I need to get a piece of this action.